JYOTI SHARMA,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

delay was condoned. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed another order under section 250 in the context of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY ,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

RAM PARSAD DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY,MARKANDA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, AMBALA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. In the present appeal, Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. Because the action is being challenged on facts & law for there being breach to the Provisions of Section 250(6) r.w. Section 250(4), 250(5), 251(l)(a), 251(l)(b

BALDEV SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARDS 1, FATEHBAD

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 813/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Baldev Singh, Vs. The Ito, बनाम M/S Baldev Singh Jarnail Ward-1, Singh, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad Dharsul Kalan, Tehsil Tohana, Fatehabad

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merits. 8. The Assessee has taken five grounds of appeal out of which Ground No. 5 is a general which does not call for recording of any specific findings. 9. In Ground No.3, Assessee has pleaded that the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in charging the tax u/s 115BBE

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax\nAct, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty\nproceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges\nout from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax\nAct, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty\nproceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act.\n\n3. First, we take the quantum

JATINDER NATH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), LUDHIANA, RISHI NAGAR, LUDHIANA

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 728 & 729/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Jatinder Nath, Vs The ITO, House No.134, Sunil Park, Ward 6(4), Rishi Nagar, Opp. MBD Mall, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ADNPN1619C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee

JATINDER NATH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 728 & 729/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Jatinder Nath, Vs The ITO, House No.134, Sunil Park, Ward 6(4), Rishi Nagar, Opp. MBD Mall, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ADNPN1619C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee

MAHESH T. PRASANA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-1, PARWANOO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D.Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 419/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

271(1)(c) of the ITA 419/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 6 Income Tax Act. 6. We have considered the submissions filed by the Revenue on this issue as well as the detailed affidavit filed by the assessee on this issue of condonation of delay. We find that the Revenue has conceded that the Dispatch Register in the office

INDER PAL SINGH LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED SATNAM SINGH 171789, STREET NO.8, GURU TEG BAHADUR JAGRAON,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JAGRAON , PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

b) in respect of single transaction; or (c) in respect of transactions relating to one event or occasion from a person, otherwise than by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a [bank account or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed].” 6. That in the order

RAVI KAKKAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Were Identical. In View Of The Aforesaid

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 4. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in both the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose of both the captioned appeals by a consolidated order

RAVI KAKKAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Were Identical. In View Of The Aforesaid

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 4. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in both the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose of both the captioned appeals by a consolidated order

SMT. JAGDEEP KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048105767(1) Dt. 20/12/2022 Which Was Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Said First Appeal Was Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A). Therefore Assessee Is Before Us. The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. 4. In Form No. 36 The Assessee Interalia Has Take Up Following Grounds Of Appeal Against The Impugned Order Which Are Reproduced Below:

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income are being initiated separately. Penalty proceedings u/s 271F for non filing of Income Tax Return are being initiated separately. Based upon above, the total income of the assessee is computed as under:- Addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 Rs. 7,35,000/- Assessed

SUKHDEV RAJ,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

delay of 181 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. In the present appeal the assessee has raised following grounds: 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section

GURMELO DEVI,JAGADHARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, YUMNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. In the present appeal Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly frame d the assessment u/s 144 of the ACT. 2. Learned A.O has made lump sum addition Rs 8000000/ treating entire cash deposits as undis closed

JAGROOP SINGH,BARNALA vs. ITO, W-1, BARNALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is treated as dismissed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105946628(1) Dt. 08/01/2024 Passed By The Cit(A) Under Section 250(6) Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant A.Y. Is 2012-13 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2011 To 31/03/2012. 2. Factual Matrix

271 (1 )(b) have been initiated for non- compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2.7 Thus the Ld. AO computed total income of assessee at Rs. 57,28,420/- (returned income Rs. 28,420/- + Rs. 57,00,000/-). 4 2.8 That the aforesaid assessment order of Ld. AO bears No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/ 1022452033(1

IPF VIKRAM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

delay of 42 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 2 5. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in upholding the reopening the assessment by issuance of notice

JAGJIT SINGH ,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PATIALA , PATIALA

In the result we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of Ld

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058720011(1) Dt. 13/12/2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2010 To 31/03/2011. 2. Factual Matrix

271(1)(b) Opportunity letter 04 06.2018 11 06.2018 -do- Show cause to penalty u/s 22 06 2018 28 06.2018 -do- 27l(1)(b) Notice u/s 142(1) 19.07.2018 26.07.2018 -do- Notice u/s 142(1) 06.08.2018 13.08.2018 -do- Notice u/s 142(1) 06.09.2018 12.09.2018 -do- Show cause notice 19.09.2018 27.09.2018 -do- Opportunity letter 22 10.2018 26.10.2018 -do- ! 2.5 That